The Nature of Time and the Essence of Relativity

[LU Shan]

Lu Shan

March, 2017

Today, I want to discuss about the nature of time and the essence of relativity in a written form.

First, let’s discuss the issue of where time comes from. The whole process that time came into being is that clock always vibrates, driving the clock dial hand to move evenly, rhythmically and ceaselessly. So time passes evenly relative to clock. Every time the clock moves once, the second hand on the clock dial advances one grid with one value added accordingly. For instance, if the second hand advances one grid, we call it a second. If the second hand moves one round with sixty grids, then the minute hand moves one grid, i.e. a minute. Similarly, if the minute hand moves one round with sixty grids, then the hour hand moves one grid, i.e. an hour. One day is 24 hours. People experience time from second to year in the western civilization. Humans have arranged time with knowledge accumulated during more than 1700 years. People discuss time in terms of calendar, clock and religion. For many people, time is just such simple things as day, hour and second to determine their life. To them, time is a reality. But to some others, time is kinds of so magic conception that it is hard to ascertain and is unpredictable. It is the fleeting magic power which passes over every of us. For example, cosmologists, poets, artists and geologists all explore time in their own ways with their own respect. As to physicists, it is the continuity and the orderliness of time that govern the natural world.

May or may not you agree that the natural world enlightens us, but we seem to turn a blind eye to it. Today, we all use time; however we do not or totally do not understand time. Actually, time is invisible and intangible and some of its related nature still hides behind our intuition. If we don’t have enough empirical and inferential power to define time in physics, physics is bound to struggle in relative motion. In the early time Galileo Galilei-Isaac Newton believed that time was absolute, real and mathematic, the nature of which determines its own even passage, not relative to any outward thing. Such time concept and its function have never been challenged, thus bringing error in understanding the nature for centuries. Later Hendrik Antoon Lorentz -Albert Einstein found that time, relative to the moving clock is usually relative in many cases. This has moved forward the first important step although there was slight error between their theory and experiment.

What is the problem? I also seek for the answer in this way. Once the previous concept of time went forward from kinematics to electrodynamics, the paradox emerged. We’ll have to face such serious errors of turning against the sacred spirit of science of sincerity and accuracy if we do not think seriously, express the nature of time and essence of relativity without experimental verification and detailed explanation despite the slight error in time concept between the Lorentz-Einstein theory and the previous one.

 

How to meet the challenge in dealing with time in physics?

The concept of time has experienced great challenges in physics. We have kinds of clock time among which four kinds are worthy for attention: the first is the time of the sun that is provided by solar day; the second is that of timer by which time is divided by solar day period; the third is that of relatively stationary clock which has brought us both utmost convenience and new puzzlement; the fourth is of relatively moving clock which has largely perplexed physics to have a great impact on the development of physics even though the relative change of such time is small.

I want to specify how we could apply science to the challenge of time today.

From the simple trial and experience accumulation to the finding of relative-motion time through electromagnetic research, humans explore time with scientific methods all the time. I divide the whole process that humans perceive time into four stages:

The first is the time of the sun. In our daily experience, there lies a certain order between day and night, summer and winter, ebb and flow, which helps us know the predictable but unchangeable physical process. People behave in accordance with the natural and orderly solar day period, sunrise and sunset work, dine and sleep, etc. Whatever animals or plants, the growths all illustrate that the whole day period matches the solar day period. Humans calculated day, month and year based on the natural period of the earth in the early stages. Later on such concepts as day, month and year were based on the observable motion of stars, moon and sun. Humans’ observation of nature with regard to the season all exhibited the change of time. However such time could not satisfy humans to understand the whole process of the natural world. For example, the whole process of humans’ behavior in one day could not be fully expressed respectively by solar day. The fact is so even though we do not notice it.

The second is the time of timer. Initially, the solar day provided us with constant period as timing basis. People hoped to divide the solar day period into a smaller unit so as to grasp more detailed event process. What needs to do is how to do the division on a period. Hence one device whose motion coincides with the celestial body movement was expected. Such a device is incredibly existent that the solar motion and gnomonic projection were used to observe the motion of time. However, it could not be used when the sun is not observable such as in cloudy days or at night. Therefore, water clock using amount of dropping water to time was used. But water clock has one inherent shortage that water freezes when it is cold. Italian mathematician and astronomer Galileo found the theory of pendulum vibration in 1680s. In 1850s, Dutch scientists Christiaan Huygens made the first pendulum clock, linking the swing of pendulum and the mechanical device, which made the use of the regular swing of pendulum to time. Such a creation revolutionized the timing method. Later people measured time more accurately based on constant oscillation of atoms. However, the appearance of clock also brought people new problems when it brought us utmost convenience.

The third is the time of relatively stationary clock. In the late half of 19th century, airplane, telephone and other telecommunication devices began to serve the world. Since clock time was set by the sun in every place, one problem arose that one place in the world must be in the darkness while another place is in the sun. For instance, when it is at noon in New York of the U.S.A., it must be in the midnight in Penth of Australia. Hence there was the local time in every region of the earth according to the sun rise and sun set in its own region. Consequently, people began to notice the local time very nervously, leading to almost miserable anxiety, quite beyond imagination even today. We must convert one local time to another if needed. Such a situation promoted the birth of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), i.e. universal standard time. GMT refers to the standard time from the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London for the prime meridian there is defined as meridian going through that place. Royal Greenwich Observatory issues the timing message every other hour ever since Feb.5, 1924 so as to solve the problem of converting the local time. Since any point of the earth is relatively stationary, the local time is regarded as time of the relatively stationary clock. However, what people did not realize is that what has already been done in the way from the local time to the Greenwich Mean Time, from nature to reason is only part of the relative time. The issue is far from that and we still need to go further to solve the problem.

The fourth is the time of the relatively moving clock. The appearance of electromagnetics brought a new challenge to the previous time concept that the previous concept drew self-contradictory conclusion in dealing with optical signal change and object motion at the turn of 19th century and 20th century. The typical example is Albert Abraham Michelson-Edward Williams Morley Aberration Experiment. It is a great pity that even though there are lots of theories, data and practices in physics, people only know there lies a certain slight error between theory and experiment, but don’t know what the problem is till now. Thankfully, the renowned Lorentz-Einstein theory introduced a changeable time concept into the relative motion in physics. However its reason remains unknown till now. Even though, this theory actually combined the event and the observer and has begun human’s course in exploring time of the relatively moving clock. People began to realize that “your time” differs from “my time”, which is determined by how we move. Therefore, the time of the relatively moving clock is left for us to understand totally.

 

Cognition of the nature of time

As was mentioned of time of the sun, timer time, time of relatively stationary clock and relatively uniform linear moving clock, the issue of the clock time has not been discussed seriously for a long time even though we had got good linear time model in the period of Aristotle, namely time under the particle model. We could simulate sequence of the event, but is it the same case in physics? No one knows.

I even think that the sequence of the event that the clock records is only the appearance, not the essence of time. Humans try to understand the course of the world by time. But is the course objective? For example, once you get up in the morning, if you find the clock hands on the wall differ from those of the clock on your bedside, do you know which is correct? You may feel confused. In fact, we use our intuition such as vision, hearing, and touch to comprehend the world, the course of which is certainly objective, but is not completely so. After we feel the time with our intuition, we may only concern about how time consequence corresponds clock, but neglecting how time interval corresponds clock. That is why it could not be called objective.

Is it difficult for us to comprehend this implicit world by means of intuition? I don’t think so. I think the inherent nature of time (being stationary) must include four aspects of concept. First is the isotropic concept which originates from the idea that the dependence relationship of various time quantities of the same clock is not related to the direction. For example, the clock time relative to any direction of the event process remains the same. Second is the relativity concept of simultaneity, which originates from the different clock time referring to the same event. For example, if the starting points of the two clocks referring to the same event are regarded as reference points, the time of these two clocks of the same event could be relatively simultaneous. Third is the continuous orderly concept which originates from the dependence relationship of various time quantities of the same clock. For example, if one event ends, while another event of the same clock continues, we say another event needs more time. Fourth is the quantifiable time concept which originates from the clock period, i.e. time interval or time velocity is unchangeable. For example, the process of an event is quantified by each “clock tick”. To further understand it, we can also say that the time velocity of a clock is constant. Thus it can be seen that the inherent clock time is not of linear particle motion, but of spacial uniform velocity field. Thus, my paper “Three Dimensional Space-time” in International Research Journal of Natural Sciences (Vol.4, No.2, pp.24-28, May 2016)^[1] believes that time and space can be quantified by the same value with the metrical method to put the spacial metric as the time wave length. Hence, space-time can be regarded as not only the observable quantity, but also three dimensional. As a result, time is introduced into space, namely space-time. With such a space-time concept, we could use the measurable process of the event in space to quantify the abstract uniform velocity field time.

Then how to verify the theory of uniform velocity field to explain clock time with experiment? As clock is linked with the natural solar day and the clock time that we get used to is set on the earth according to the sun, the clock time velocity is radian/second, the velocity on terrestrial equator being 465 meter/second, i.e. meter/second. Since the object motion velocity that humans could observe by sight is less than that of sound (sound velocity in the air is 346 meter/second), time velocity is much more than what we can observe, which in turn makes it harder to discuss uniform velocity field of the clock. Hence, another paper of mine “Metric in Reference System Transformation” in International Journal of Sciences (Vol. 5, pp.100-109, April 2016)^[2] states that it helps solve the problem to find an experimental method to get the wave motion velocity within an observable scale by comparison. As mechanical wave and electromagnetic wave share all the wave features, and the wave motion velocity on the water surface caused by uniform falling water drops is within the observable scale, we can assume that the clock always implies a certain physically substantial thing around its surrounding space according to the electromagnetic field explanation by Michael Faraday. Like the wave motion caused by uniform falling water drops, an experiment model of uniform velocity field of time inherent in the clock can be obtained. The uniform falling water drop is equal to the clock that the wave motion velocity on the water surface caused by uniform falling water drops is equal to the time velocity of the clock, while the wave motion length is equal to the time period of the clock and the wave motion rhythm is equal to time sequence. Hence the wave motion distance just equals to time length of the clock. Thus, time could be regarded as inherent uniform velocity field of the clock, which could be in the form of either particle in one direction or uniform velocity field or energy. Therefore, I believe as you do that the intuition of time by each of us is not only of isotropous concept, continuous orderly concept, and simultaneously relative concept, but also of quantifiable concept among intervals events.

Then how to see it clear about the nature of time? In my opinion, “existence precedes essence” that however strict the logic is, however good the reasons are, so long as it deviates from the condition of existence of things, only to pursue the preset model effect, the result is bound to be the opposite of our will. With the experiment model of the wave motion caused by the uniform falling water drops, we can compare two groups of wave motion result caused by the same uniform falling water drops to verify the relation of the time relative to the clock. The result shows that the time value of the relatively stationary clock is only relative to the time sequence, not to the period. The time value of the relatively uniform linear moving clock is not only relative to time sequence, but also to the period. When the clock motion velocity is less than time velocity, as to the relatively moving clock, an asymmetric frequency shift occurs between the time period along the clock moving direction and that deviating from the clock moving direction, i.e. the time period along the clock moving direction contracts, offsetting that deviating from the clock moving direction with equal magnitudes and opposite directions. A symmetric frequency shift occurs to the time vertical to the clock moving direction, i.e. the time periods vertical to the clock moving direction contract simultaneously with equal magnitudes and opposite directions. Therefore, the relatively stationary time and the relatively uniform linear motion time of the same clock are not equivalent.

Even though, we still need to think that mathematics researches the relationship between numbers without considering their quantitive relations, while physics works on not only mathematic concept, but also quantitive relations of these concepts, thus reaching the true conclusion in motion, space, time, etc. As first order quantity numbers are rational numbers, which could be established on the continuous orderly foundation logically, their interdependence and relationship could be derived accordingly. The time period of the same relatively stationary clock is constant, while the time period of the same relatively uniform linear moving clock is of the first quantity number. Consequently, calculation of physical quantities can be boiled down to the unification of numbers.

Therefore, the nature of time is determined by the uniform velocity field of time, a concept best to explain the nature of time. Then we’ll see challenges brought by the nature of time to the Principle of Relativity.

 

Does “Principle of Relativity” have universal meaning?

Henri Poincare first put forward Principle of Relativity as an empirical law in his works Science and Hypothesis. He expects a theory to explain or verify Principle of Relativity. As he states, “It’s impossible to deny that Principle of Relativity is the universal law of nature.” it was definitely undoubted at that time.

According to Principle of Relativity, “The laws of physics must be uniform regardless of the observer in stationary or uniform motion state.” Incredibly, since such a simple phenomenon exists in our world, we’ll have to believe that it is ubiquitous. Is that true? Certainly not. Actually physics has not been sure how Principle of Relativity influences the observer’s clock time. Why? It is because this is not what we can feel by intuition.

Then how to prove that Principle of Relativity does not have universality? Poincare believes, “We don’t have any means to identify such motion we are doing, and we’ll never have this means.” Many scientists have searched the entity of Principle of Relativity for a long time. What is the cause of the problem? To my understanding, the evolutionary theory of the linear time of the relative motion under the particle model covers all other contradictions relative to space-time, which put all reference systems into Principle of Relativity, even making some unsuitable ones fitted into this principle. Such explanation of nature neither informs the shortage of Principle of Relativity nor observes things from a wider perspective. I propose we think all such concepts as motion, space and time systematically. If we separate clock time from the reference system, we are just like the proverbial blind men grasping an elephant; the answer likely depends on where you're standing. Nevertheless, with the uniform velocity field model, we can see that the above mentioned clock time verified by analog experiments has different periods in different motion states , for the observer of the relative motion quantifies the position relative to his own reference system according to each “clock tick” of his own. Hence the assumption in Principle of Relativity that metrics in reference system transformation are completely equivalent is insufficient. In other words, Principle of Relativity is not of universality. Consequently, such time period relative to the moving clock is regarded as the cause that brings about the slight change of time in the observer’s clock of the relative motion. Then it is easier for us to prove that Galileo and Lorentz transformation is covariant, and we could also get a rather strict expression of metrics in reference system transformation in classical physics and electromagnetics. Just as one law exists because of its natural existence, so does the essence of relativity. It’s that simple that nature enlightens us a lot.

I have one question. Do you believe that the unit measuring gauge could measure the length of a distance? Your answer must be “yes”. What’s more, is it possible to measure this length of distance with light instead of measuring gauge? You may say “probably”, not as certain as the first answer. What if the measuring of this distance by time existing in our cognition, in physics? I think those who have the knowledge of physics must believe so. If I further ask you to explain the meaning, you’ll feel not as simple as it sounds. Simply saying, just like our daily walk, if you ask others how far they have walked, their answer may be by steps, making us confused unless “step” is defined. Hence, we meet the same puzzlement wherever time measurement is involved in physics. As to the observer, the concept could not be established unless it satisfies the actual conditions. Thus we need such a definition of measuring gauge to provide a method for the observer to ascertain the length of the distance by experiment. If we result in the length of the distance without satisfying the definition of measuring gauge, we can only say that we are physically deceiving ourselves.

Perplexed by Principle of Relativity, the active and passive detection of relative motion, wireless communication, GPS (Global Positioning System) and cosmological observations are all affected in physics. For example, the measuring theory of GPS focuses on the setting of clock, which uses one way signal to pass the time interval and then to measure the distance. Clocks in GPS，the ground monitoring network and users are in the unceasingly relative motion state, with slight error of relatively moving clock. Even though, it certainly influences the accuracy of GPS. To solve this problem, my paper “The Issue About the Aberration and Red Shift of Stellar Light Propagated to the Surface of the Earth” published in International Research Journal of Natural Sciences (Vol.4, No.3, pp.40-44, September 2016)^[3] proves that the aberration and red shift of the stellar light propagated to the surface of the earth are the result of the wave length change instead of the result of either the light velocity change or the space change. This paper also points out that it is inappropriate to explain aberration with Galileo’s velocity superposition theory or to prove Big Bang Cosmology by the red shift of the stellar light found by Edwin P Hubble.

Further, let’s think about how time is quantified if the issue of the relatively moving clock time is extended to mechanics? Force is the result of accelerated motion, the clock time of which is the second order quantity. In the past cognition, the irrational numbers and imaginary numbers of the second order quantity could not be established on the continuous orderly foundation logically, which in turn made it hard to derive their mutual dependence and relationship. Therefore do not say that we are not clear about the time value of mechanics. We seem to know little of the physical meaning of irrational numbers and imaginary numbers. That is to say, our perceived math is not completely ready for the extension of the relatively moving clock time to mechanics. Thus I also have my paper “Physical Meaning of Irrational Numbers and Imaginary Numbers” published in International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Studies (Vol.4, No.6, pp.1-12, December 2016)^[4]. From the aspect of mathematics, I point out that it helps calculation of time values in mechanics be concluded to unification of numbers once more if we reunderstand the continuous orderly structure of values in irrational numbers and imaginary numbers.

What is the essence of humans grasping Principle of Relativity? Very early I have noticed some illogical things in the research of electrodynamics, which are results inferred by Principle of Relativity. Obviously, we are stuck in the situation of problems that we try to seek the answer to one question; without knowing it, we go on with seeking the others. As a result, we are lost in questions without remembering the first question. Personally, to my understanding, it is obviously contrary to the methodology that physics believes Principle of Relativity and then seeks the answer to electrodynamics without totally understand the nature of time. The renowned theory Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity truly believe that the relative motion must be described by Principle of Relativity, making it difficult to accept for experiments. In fact, theories should not oppose to empirical facts. It is obvious of the unbalance. Then from description of Lorentz-Einstein theory do you also notice similar problem of Principle of Relativity has already existed since Galileo-Newton theory? We’ll be drifting with waves while dancing on top of them if the understanding and reasoning about the time at the relativity level are lacked. I have reported my research and ideas in my paper, some of which seem not direct relative to electrodynamics. Nevertheless, I believe that these research results based on empirical study help understand the origin of electrodynamics and its cause behind. Since traditional explanation has obvious disadvantages and too many Paradigm traps, I think it rather haste for physics to cognize the nature of time and the essence of Principle of Relativity. My research is only confined to the relative uniform linear motion, not as I expected. What I expect may open a new door for physics, full of sunshine; meanwhile, it may also close an old door that we are unwilling to leave. After all, physics need to move forward. Actually, it is more difficult for us to find the key to electrodynamics, taking up more time to have old problems been solved and new ones arise. Hence we should make it clear of the essence of Principle of Relativity which is determined by the nature of time in order to find the key to electrodynamics. First we’ll need to investigate things involved in the nature of time. If it extends to electrodynamics, we still need to investigate those of mathematics.

Consequently, reunderstanding Principle of Relativity means not only Lorentz-Einstein theory but also Galileo-Newton theory has disadvantages. Until today in the development of physics, electrodynamics has stepped into “No Man's Land” that if we follow man’s pace, we’ll gradually slow down. Reunderstanding linear time under particle model and Principle of Relativity may bring new hope to electrodynamics. As is known, what we see the time sequence by our intuition is tangible that it can be touched, simple, beautiful, and having a panoramic view. However the time interval is the intangible world away from our intuition, invisible, intangible and unpredictable—too profound to understand. We are all in the tangible and intangible world, while I hope we could truly and accurately judge these two, the very wonderful and fantastic world.

 

Note:

[1] Article: Three Dimensional Space-Time.

Journal: International Research Journal of Natural Sciences Vol.4, No. 2, pp. 24-28, May 2016.

Article Link:

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Three-Dimensional-Space-Time.pdfPublishing Group:【U.K.】European Centre for Research, Training and Development (ECRTD)

Website: http://www.eajournals.org

Impact factor: 8.01（2016）

Print ISSN: 2055-6578 （printing plate）

Online ISSN：2053-6586　(online version)

[2] Article: Metric in Reference System Transformation

Journal: International Journal of Sciences Vol.5, Issue April 2016, pp. 100-109.

Article Link:

http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/article/995?utm_contents=ZDNWc2FYUnZkV2RoYjBBeE1qWXVZMjl0Publishing Group:【U.S.A.】Alkhaer Group- OA

Website: www.ijsciences.com

Impact factor: 2.78（2016）

eISSN:2305-3925 (online version)

pISSN：2410-4477（printing plate）

[3] Article: The Issue about the Aberration and Red Shift of Stellar Light Propagated to the Surface of the Earth

Journal: International Research Journal of Natural Sciences Vol.4, No.3, pp. 40-44, September 2016.

Article Link:

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Issue-New-IRJNS-196.pdfPublishing Group:【U.K.】European Centre for Research, Training and Development (ECRTD)

Website: http://www.eajournals.org

Impact factor: 8.01（2016）

Print ISSN: 2055-6578（printing plate）

Online ISSN：2053-6586 (online version)

[4] Article: Physical Meaning of Irrational Numbers and Imaginary Numbers

Journal: International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Studies (IJMSS) Vol4, Issue 6,pp. 1-12,December 2016

Article Link:

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Physical-Meaning-of-Irrational-Numbers-and-Imaginary-Numbers.pdfPublishing Group:【U.K.】European Centre for Research Training and Development UK（ECRTD）

Website: http://www.eajournals.org

Impact factor: 8.37

Print ISSN: ISSN 2053-2229 （printing plate）

Online ISSN: ISSN 2053-2210 (online version)T

Edited March 15, 2017 by LU Shan

[MigL]

And, this being a discussion forum...

What do you wish to discuss ?

[winds]

The Principle of Relativity put forward by Henri Poincare is proven to be wrong by experiment! What's your view on this? What does it mean?

[Strange]

The Principle of Relativity put forward by Henri Poincare is proven to be wrong by experiment!

 

 

Citation needed.

[winds]

 

 

Citation needed.

Please refer to the paper of remarks (2) in this article, there is some empirical analysis.

[Strange]

Please refer to the paper of remarks (2) in this article, there is some empirical analysis.

 

 

How about something a little more ... serious.

[Daecon]

What about the reports of all the people who repeated this experiment to verify those findings? Where there any, and if so - do you have a link to them?

Edited March 19, 2017 by Daecon

[winds]

In my opinion, this experiment is not complicated, and many people can do the repeats, the only difference is the accuracy of the results.

 

What about the reports of all the people who repeated this experiment to verify those findings? Where there any, and if so - do you have a link to them?

[Strange]

In my opinion, this experiment is not complicated, and many people can do the repeats, the only difference is the accuracy of the results.

 

 

 

So where is the experiment that refutes the principle of relativity?

And why refer to Poincare? Did he say anything different from Lorentz or Einstein or ...

[winds]

Could i ask if you study physics？

[Strange]

Could i ask if you study physics？

 

You can ask.

 

Now, about these experiments that show relativity wrong: how about some examples? Why the reluctance?

[John_wick82]

I have often thought that space/time, is a gelatinous type previously undiscovered state of matter...Any thought?

[swansont]

I have often thought that space/time, is a gelatinous type previously undiscovered state of matter...Any thought?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I think that jumping into a discussion to proffer your own non-mainstream viewpoint (or ask your own questions) is considered hijacking. Please review the rules, make these observations in a new thread, and not drag this discussion further off topic by responding.

[JohnLesser]

What are you looking to discuss? or are you looking for peer-view clarification on your ''paper'' before you do anything with it?

 

I do think it is beautifully written .

[winds]

The author has published four papers before this article, please read the note.

[Strange]

When are you going to provide details of these experiments that refute relativity?

[winds]

The author used a wave motion experiment (see remark 1) on the water surface caused by uniform falling water drops, which is simple, accuracy and repeatable，to discuss the nature of time and the essence of relativity. What a pity! Why the moderator move the post to this “Speculation” board？

[swansont]

The author used a wave motion experiment (see remark 1) on the water surface caused by uniform falling water drops, which is simple, accuracy and repeatable，to discuss the nature of time and the essence of relativity. What a pity! Why the moderator move the post to this “Speculation” board？

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Because it's not mainstream science, and this is where such discussion goes.

 

Also, the author has not returned in the two months after posting this, but if he had there would be feedback on how this seems to just be advertising his papers, and how rule 2.7 needs to be followed (discussion here, without having to go to his links), and how very little physics is actually included in the post.

 

If you wish to discuss the OP, do so. But cease with the off-topic chatter. If you want to pursue the Poincare discussion, do that in a new thread; very little in the way of detail has been presented here.

 

[imatfaal]

I know this is a bit off-topic but as the credibility of the paper Metric in Reference System Transformation has been questioned I thought I would check the bona fides of the journal / publisher.

 

This is their registered address:

 

 

 

I haven't checked them out in the Predatory Journals schedule - but I reckon I might find them

[swansont]

That looks to be a few doors down — 23 vs 13. The chemist's (Obson) is #17

[Manticore]

I managed to plough through the entire original post. Looks to me as if it's the dreaded tired light "theory" raising it's ugly head again.

[Strange]

I haven't checked them out in the Predatory Journals schedule - but I reckon I might find them

 

 

Sadly, the predators seem to have made enough money to have that taken off line.

[imatfaal]

 

 

Sadly, the predators seem to have made enough money to have that taken off line.

 

Yeah - the lists are still available as of January. Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne seem to have wielded the boot to great effect - "hey let's silence the critics with threats of legal sanctions which no one can afford to question/defend"

 

That looks to be a few doors down — 23 vs 13. The chemist's (Obson) is #17

 

Damn - you're right. It just looked so perfect that I didn't zoom in enough to check the number closely. Confirmation bias strikes again! It does show how easy it is to swoop on an answer which fulfils one's expectations

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Poincare discussion has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105903-poincares-relativity-split-from-essence-of-relativity/

 

[winds]

Readers pay attention! The author has published his article in China, Britain, Japan and the United States. If you are interested, you can read the author's paper in detail from the links below.

[Links removed by moderator]